From nobody Sat Nov 1 14:06:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B701A1A81 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hlXW8THmaTR4 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node16.dns-hosting.info [81.23.228.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA971A1A79 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.8.4] (r179-29-229-119.dialup.mobile.ancel.net.uy [179.29.229.119]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0E5A16DC721 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 22:06:05 +0100 (CET) From: Adrian Georgescu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7E67441-37E6-4827-8582-E79E9EF3758D" Message-Id: <7B9B57EE-5A4A-4DDD-9AEA-16AEFF81AA0F@ag-projects.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:15:47 -0200 To: simple@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 $1878.6$) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/fPFkgJtzWfNcasLiiLVDobK672w Subject: [Simple] MSRP switch reference implementation for draft-ietf-simple-chat X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 21:06:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F7E67441-37E6-4827-8582-E79E9EF3758D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hello, I would kindly request the authors to mention a reference implementation = available in the public domain for this draft: SylkServer from = http://sylkserver.com -- Adrian --Apple-Mail=_F7E67441-37E6-4827-8582-E79E9EF3758D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hello,

I would kindly request the authors to mention a reference implementation available in the public domain for this draft: SylkServer from http://sylkserver.com

--
Adrian

--Apple-Mail=_F7E67441-37E6-4827-8582-E79E9EF3758D-- From nobody Thu Nov 13 12:16:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DC31A9061 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:57:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uF_ynbYU1eTJ for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B541A9060 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:57:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3A11A181C8D; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:56:50 -0800 (PST) To: ben@estacado.net, rohan@ekabal.com, fluffy@cisco.com, rlb@ipv.sx, alissa@cooperw.in, hisham.khartabil@gmail.com, ben@nostrum.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20141113175650.3A11A181C8D@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:56:50 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/YUjx23aKDq-R36iHs9laBbPQ2QY X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:16:14 -0800 Cc: archie.cobbs@gmail.com, simple@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Simple] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4975 (4177) X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:57:32 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4975, "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4975&eid=4177 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Archie Cobbs Section: 7.1 Original Text ------------- line, and a flag character. If a body is present, the end-line MUST be preceded by a CRLF that is not part of the body. If the chunk represents the data that forms the end of the complete message, the flag value MUST be a "$". If the sender is aborting an incomplete message, and intends to send no further chunks in that message, the flag MUST be a "#". Otherwise, the flag MUST be a "+". If the request contains a body, the sender MUST ensure that the end- line (seven hyphens, the transaction identifier, and a continuation flag) is not present in the body. If the end-line is present in the Corrected Text -------------- line, and a flag character. If a body is present, the end-line MUST be preceded by a CRLF that is not part of the body. If the chunk represents the data that forms the end of the complete message, the flag value MUST be a "$". If the sender is aborting an incomplete message, and intends to send no further chunks in that message, the flag MUST be a "#". Otherwise, the flag MUST be a "+". If the request contains a body, the sender MUST ensure that the end- line (seven hyphens, the transaction identifier, and a continuation flag) is not present in the body. A receiver detecting an end-line present in the body preceded by a non-empty sequence other than CRLF SHOULD terminate the session. If the end-line is present in the Notes ----- The way the text is written leaves unspecified how a receiver should handle the situation where it encounters an end-line within the body that's preceded by something OTHER than CRLF. Obviously, this indicates the sender is not complying with this RFC, but what should the receiver do? Should the receiver terminate the connection? Or just proceed giving no special interpretation to the end-line, which would actually work just fine? The suggested change reflects the first choice. If the second choice were made, the change could be: If the request contains a body, the sender MUST ensure that the end-line (seven hyphens, the transaction identifier, and a continuation flag) neither appears at the beginning of the body nor is not present in the body preceded by CRLF. An end-line MAY appear in the body if preceded in the body by any non-empty sequence other than CRLF. This would force the interpretation that an end-line not preceded by CRLF has no special significance. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC4975 (draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-19) -------------------------------------- Title : The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) Publication Date : September 2007 Author(s) : B. Campbell, Ed., R. Mahy, Ed., C. Jennings, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu Nov 13 13:24:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728A31AD5EB for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:24:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MBggcWyTHTpU for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:24:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 958A51AD5D4 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:24:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from unnumerable.local ([130.129.11.137]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sADLO3sD041789 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:24:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [130.129.11.137] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <54652173.9090509@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:24:03 -1000 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: simple@ietf.org References: <20141113175650.3A11A181C8D@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20141113175650.3A11A181C8D@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/q4QdGGgbZHmL6kxQ3zz6VOpEQJU Subject: Re: [Simple] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4975 (4177) X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:24:14 -0000 Hi Archie - You'll find lots of cases where we don't specify what to do when the peer violates the protocol. (Not just in this document, but in RFCs in general). Trying to encompass the entire scope of such violations is impossible, and we rely on Postel's maxim instead. Is there a particular point of interoperability failure where having this as a requirement would help the protocol, or is it (as I read it) just one of several ways that an implementation could do something reasonable when the peer goes off the rails? If it's the latter, I think we should mark this errata as invalid (not that the point isn't good, but a new requirement in the document isn't how to express it). RjS On 11/13/14 7:56 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4975, > "The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4975&eid=4177 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Archie Cobbs > > Section: 7.1 > > Original Text > ------------- > line, and a flag character. If a body is present, the end-line MUST > be preceded by a CRLF that is not part of the body. If the chunk > represents the data that forms the end of the complete message, the > flag value MUST be a "$". If the sender is aborting an incomplete > message, and intends to send no further chunks in that message, the > flag MUST be a "#". Otherwise, the flag MUST be a "+". > > If the request contains a body, the sender MUST ensure that the end- > line (seven hyphens, the transaction identifier, and a continuation > flag) is not present in the body. If the end-line is present in the > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > line, and a flag character. If a body is present, the end-line MUST > be preceded by a CRLF that is not part of the body. If the chunk > represents the data that forms the end of the complete message, the > flag value MUST be a "$". If the sender is aborting an incomplete > message, and intends to send no further chunks in that message, the > flag MUST be a "#". Otherwise, the flag MUST be a "+". > > If the request contains a body, the sender MUST ensure that the end- > line (seven hyphens, the transaction identifier, and a continuation > flag) is not present in the body. A receiver detecting an end-line > present in the body preceded by a non-empty sequence other than CRLF > SHOULD terminate the session. If the end-line is present in the > > > Notes > ----- > The way the text is written leaves unspecified how a receiver should handle the situation where it encounters an end-line within the body that's preceded by something OTHER than CRLF. > > Obviously, this indicates the sender is not complying with this RFC, but what should the receiver do? > > Should the receiver terminate the connection? Or just proceed giving no special interpretation to the end-line, which would actually work just fine? > > The suggested change reflects the first choice. If the second choice were made, the change could be: > > If the request contains a body, the sender MUST ensure that the > end-line (seven hyphens, the transaction identifier, and a continuation > flag) neither appears at the beginning of the body nor is not present > in the body preceded by CRLF. An end-line MAY appear in the body if > preceded in the body by any non-empty sequence other than CRLF. > > This would force the interpretation that an end-line not preceded by CRLF has no special significance. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC4975 (draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-19) > -------------------------------------- > Title : The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) > Publication Date : September 2007 > Author(s) : B. Campbell, Ed., R. Mahy, Ed., C. Jennings, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions > Area : Real-time Applications and Infrastructure > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > > _______________________________________________ > Simple mailing list > Simple@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple From nobody Thu Nov 13 15:26:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72C91AD620 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:35:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.494 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2Hhl5PODcyN for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:35:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B71C1AD6CF for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:35:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from unnumerable.local ([130.129.11.137]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sADLYqoF042988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:34:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [130.129.11.137] claimed to be unnumerable.local Message-ID: <546523FC.4080606@nostrum.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:34:52 -1000 From: Robert Sparks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RFC Errata System , ben@estacado.net, rohan@ekabal.com, fluffy@cisco.com, rlb@ipv.sx, alissa@cooperw.in, hisham.khartabil@gmail.com, ben@nostrum.com References: <20141113175650.3A11A181C8D@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20141113175650.3A11A181C8D@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/WaNNTGiNXkl5Ieuets5eL3yPXgQ X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:26:12 -0800 Cc: archie.cobbs@gmail.com, simple@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Simple] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4975 (4177) X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:35:15 -0000 Hi All - My original reply to this only went to the simple list. You can find it here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/q4QdGGgbZHmL6kxQ3zz6VOpEQJU RjS From archie.cobbs@gmail.com Thu Nov 13 13:45:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: simple@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D941AD8D8 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:45:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HP_4On3Fz0uf for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x22e.google.com (mail-lb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7332C1AD845 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w7so3162731lbi.19 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:45:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=swkhVCkCpEOIw222E28tnhcBGOJFm1THHD8TGSqJKqk=; b=Vrcq/aRLgaW0W29JHIUFjYs3CxBxALWL35FV7IFDDn5wigDlPjdNUP8Pv305MRCVhz lN7DrtKzbLH9rLK6ub78jyOJNjK7Lk5A6oXMtfBnltFpEa01NtrhaaquxsW7dVRQX6pP r++kNCn4N0C4D9sjj656Lvzwu09i+LjRGw/EboagFlgmUCRSuCu/scGz2BkYRAYKyO0p o/sOYtWNYxtpYEXFQBK41MQANMQUqmiEvL4y0JsrJ67LgC3GhZ/pqCwvZf+kHj4F/hSa rmNFSrGEtMvxnEsFgV90Ab0kPpy1U+AnDXQzCng8GwEmyBwpMh/c+8g8Vc1nYxghw8nl F9JQ== X-Received: by 10.152.203.164 with SMTP id kr4mr4655431lac.31.1415915130829; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:45:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.28.73 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:45:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <546523FC.4080606@nostrum.com> References: <20141113175650.3A11A181C8D@rfc-editor.org> <546523FC.4080606@nostrum.com> From: Archie Cobbs Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:45:10 -0600 Message-ID: To: Robert Sparks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134679467c3400507c46ebd Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/MAEeHJtcbgsc8fN4oPcssYndKl0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:26:12 -0800 Cc: fluffy@cisco.com, rohan@ekabal.com, ben@nostrum.com, ben@estacado.net, alissa@cooperw.in, simple@ietf.org, hisham.khartabil@gmail.com, RFC Errata System Subject: Re: [Simple] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4975 (4177) X-BeenThere: simple@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:34 -0000 --001a1134679467c3400507c46ebd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thanks, I agree with your assessment. -Archie On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Hi All - > > My original reply to this only went to the simple list. > You can find it here: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/simple/q4QdGGgbZHmL6kxQ3zz6VOpEQJU > > RjS > -- Archie L. Cobbs --001a1134679467c3400507c46ebd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, I agree with your assessment.

-Archie

On Thu, Nov 1= 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> = wrote:

Hi All -

My original reply to this only went to the simple list.
You can find it here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/si= mple/q4QdGGgbZHmL6kxQ3zz6VOpEQJU

RjS

Archie L. Cobbs

--001a1134679467c3400507c46ebd--